Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 93 of 93

Thread: How NOT to type people

  1. #81
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post

    Teasing is not a good thing to do on a text-based forum. Your words will be taken at face value.
    You might not see it as a good thing to do but unfortunately it is all we have on the internet. Well, except for those you take it to voice or video with. It challenges me to learn new ways to make myself understood. Helpful feedback can bridge communication gaps and I appreciate it.

    That is why some of my posts look like an army of emoticons. I am trying to use fewer.

    Furthermore, I have not said anything that should insult your intelligence.
    You might not have intended to but this is text based so your words will be taken at face value by some and "felt" by others. As I read them the subtext seemed clear to me but that is why I said "in my perception". I knew there was a slight chance I read your tone wrong.

    Just part of the limitations of communicating through text. I will not be dissuaded from trying harder in the future.

    Not helpful in text-based communication.
    If it is a natural way of expressing then there is not much I can do about it short of changing my natural way. I won't stop communicating because some can't read my sarcasm. That's just crazy talk. I am often half serious and half joking. As some have picked up on in my posts. I can be completely serious when I have to be but socionics is fun for me and I don't want to insert that level of seriousness. Strangely I do like to be given a seriously well thought out response to my questions but I can take sarcasm and teasing too.

    I wish you all the best, too.
    Thank you.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  2. #82
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post
    I don't think I'm changing the meaning of the word preference. Could you find me a dictionary definition which makes it necessarily a posteriori?
    They don't specifically state a posteriori, but here is one entry:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preference
    n.
    1. a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others: has a decided preference for travel by train.

    b. The right or chance to make a choice: The program offers you the preference to use the mouse or function keys.

    c. Someone or something so chosen or preferred: What are your musical preferences?

    A and C are preferences that accrue, post experience. To prefer something implies that a person has repeatedly chosen that one thing over another in the past.

    Now B could be seen as a preference based on more limited choices, but still in the example given(The program offers you the preference to use the mouse or function key) a person may choose the mouse over the function key because they have done so in the past and liked the experience of using the mouse. If it is the first time they used a computer and they just used the mouse over the function key, it can hardly be called a preference. This is where "choice" and "preference" is blurred. Just because someone chooses A over B, doesn't mean that someone invariably prefers A. If I observe someone eating a strawberry ice-cream cone, I could say that they preferred strawberry by choosing strawberry over the other flavors, but I would be wrong to conclude that they have an overall preference for strawberry because I simply wouldn't have any way to know that.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  3. #83
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    They don't specifically state a posteriori...
    There we go.

    As for specific examples, they do not rule out a priori instances of preference. They merely illustrate particulars.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  4. #84
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post
    There we go.

    As for specific examples, they do not rule out a priori instances of preference. They merely illustrate particulars.
    No, they are ruled out because a priori preferences are impossible by definition. Can you give me an example of an a priori preference that can't be better explained as a posteriori? How do you have a preference for something before you've ever experienced it or had to choose between it and something else?
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  5. #85
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    No, they are ruled out because a priori preferences are impossible by definition. Can you give me an example of an a priori preference that can't be better explained as a posteriori? How do you have a preference for something before you've ever experienced it or had to choose between it and something else?
    If they don't specifically state a posteriori, or do not specifically state not a priori, and do not specifically state meaningful equivalents of either, then they do not rule out a priori instances of preference.

    You could have a preference for something you've never experienced in the same way you might not know what you like, but eventually find out what you like. In other words, what you like and dislike can already be formed as potential attractions and repulsions before you have acknowledged or experienced them.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,223
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmmmmm.... Sounds like Fi. 4D Fi Powerrrrrsssssss.... Activate!

  7. #87
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post
    If they don't specifically state a posteriori, or do not specifically state not a priori, and do not specifically state meaningful equivalents of either, then they do not rule out a priori instances of preference.

    You could have a preference for something you've never experienced in the same way you might not know what you like, but eventually find out what you like. In other words, what you like and dislike can already be formed as potential attractions and repulsions before you have acknowledged or experienced them.
    Maybe. Or perhaps these attractions and repulsions are more random than you think. An initial repulsion could be a relatively random, instantaneous reaction by the nervous system that shapes all future reactions through neural circuitry development. Sure, some may have genetic factors that make some repulsions and attractions less random for the individual, but that doesn't mean that they are predetermined potentialities that lead to inevitable preferences. This makes sense when one considers that even genetically identical twins can have completely different preferences and personalities. As their neurons develop, there is more chance for a divergence of behavior and preferences between the two as they interact with their environment.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  8. #88
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    My premise really comes down to this: Individuals are the final arbiters of their preferences.

    Cognitive preferences aren't fixed as theorized and can change with circumstances. One may prefer the color green to all other colors, but one day may decide they like red instead. I may prefer hamburgers over hot dogs, but I used to prefer hot dogs over hamburgers. I may prefer hamburgers in the winter and hot dogs in the summer. There may be reasons for it, or none at all. It just is. Either way, I am the subject and I get to decide.

    Why is this relevant? Well, much typing I have seen thus far assumes that an observation of a cognitive preference and/or corresponding behavior equals an overall preference that is fixed. While a typologist has reason to assume that this preference occurs outside the observation, it cannot be known with increased certainty without conducting more observations. It could very well be a preference at that point in time, dependent upon factors that may be too numerous to identify. It just doesn't follow that just because a preference at a particular point in time is identified, that the preference is preferred in most or all circumstances, and it definitely doesn't mean that that preference is due to innate factors.

    Furthermore, I question the ability of anyone to properly and consistently distinguish between introverted and extroverted functions. As choosing one over the other has a significant impact on other preferences and one's overall functional stack(according to the theory), it is imperative to get it right. The fact that people can conclude opposite orientation of a preference on the same individual with the same available evidence present is all the more evidence the difficulty in distinguishing between such preferences, like Ne and Ni, or Te and Ti, etc. This is limits of the theory, not the observer. I think even the most skilled practitioner will have the same difficulties.

    My own theory is that people can and do prefer numerous functions at different points in time. That makes them appear consistent with one type during one observation and consistent with another during a different observation. It really depends on the circumstance. But people who insist that there is only one true type and that they have the insight to know for certain, are to avoided. They have the potential to cause more distress on the person exploring their own cognitive preference, preventing progress of their own discoveries, for it is quite possible that the subject's own preferences haven't been discovered. Performing and behaving, even in ways that are stereotypical of theoretical types, does not mean that the person actually prefers those corresponding functions. Just because I am good at a task and/or get observed performing it, doesn't mean I prefer it.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  9. #89
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    Maybe. Or perhaps these attractions and repulsions are more random than you think. An initial repulsion could be a relatively random, instantaneous reaction by the nervous system that shapes all future reactions through neural circuitry development. Sure, some may have genetic factors that make some repulsions and attractions less random for the individual, but that doesn't mean that they are predetermined potentialities that lead to inevitable preferences. This makes sense when one considers that even genetically identical twins can have completely different preferences and personalities. As their neurons develop, there is more chance for a divergence of behavior and preferences between the two as they interact with their environment.
    My position is that preferences can be a priori. Yours is that they cannot. Suffice to say, this response doesn't support your absolute point.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  10. #90
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post
    My position is that preferences can be a priori. Yours is that they cannot. Suffice to say, this response doesn't support your absolute point.
    When I hear a priori being used in typology, which is really concerned with one's "true" type, I cannot help but make the association of that which is a priori is really just a way of saying that preferences are predetermined, that type is predetermined. But if any preference is predetermined, it cannot be said to be a preference, which requires at least some degree of choice, that one could have had things differently.

    Jung said that one's type can change throughout one's life. He claimed his own did on more than one occasion. This could not happen if one's cognitive preferences were a priori. So the trouble is in determining between which parts of a person's overall mental features are predetermined and which are not; what is it exactly that is a priori. Only those features that could not have developed any other way for the individual can be said to be a prior, but that doesn't make them preferences. I think that is the point in which typing becomes muddled in things we can can't really know about another person. We can never really know whether a person is really smiling because they feel happy or that they are just trying to influence you, or worse manipulate, or that it was an automatic reflex and they don't even know why they smiled; there could be no reason at all.

    I am a skeptic because there are just some things one can never know and the more I read and learn about typology, the more uncertain and unknowable I find its claims to be. They are still useful, but I'm more concerned with recognizing limits, avoiding unjustified certainty, and withholding certain types of judgements until there is more information. I reserve my right to be respectfully skeptical. I sometimes get aggressive with dogmatists. I'm not saying you are one, but I have come across numerous typology/Jung dogmatists online and they sometimes try my patience.

    I see we differ quite a bit on philosophical matters. I have thought considerably about the points you've made, they are just unclear to me and I doubt them. I do appreciate your civility in your responses. It is a rare trait online these days.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  11. #91
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    When I hear a priori being used in typology, which is really concerned with one's "true" type, I cannot help but make the association of that which is a priori is really just a way of saying that preferences are predetermined, that type is predetermined. But if any preference is predetermined, it cannot be said to be a preference, which requires at least some degree of choice, that one could have had things differently.

    Jung said that one's type can change throughout one's life. He claimed his own did on more than one occasion. This could not happen if one's cognitive preferences were a priori. So the trouble is in determining between which parts of a person's overall mental features are predetermined and which are not; what is it exactly that is a priori. Only those features that could not have developed any other way for the individual can be said to be a prior, but that doesn't make them preferences. I think that is the point in which typing becomes muddled in things we can can't really know about another person. We can never really know whether a person is really smiling because they feel happy or that they are just trying to influence you, or worse manipulate, or that it was an automatic reflex and they don't even know why they smiled; there could be no reason at all.

    I am a skeptic because there are just some things one can never know and the more I read and learn about typology, the more uncertain and unknowable I find its claims to be. They are still useful, but I'm more concerned with recognizing limits, avoiding unjustified certainty, and withholding certain types of judgements until there is more information. I reserve my right to be respectfully skeptical. I sometimes get aggressive with dogmatists. I'm not saying you are one, but I have come across numerous typology/Jung dogmatists online and they sometimes try my patience.

    I see we differ quite a bit on philosophical matters. I have thought considerably about the points you've made, they are just unclear to me and I doubt them. I do appreciate your civility in your responses. It is a rare trait online these days.
    I completely respect your scepticism. I just think scepticism leads one to be aware of the possibility they are not correct, rather than the certainty that they are wrong.

    As for Jung, although he first came up with these ideas himself, I wouldn't say that grants him special authority and knowledge over the nature of the theories that have developed from his work. I find a lot of his writing a bit muddled, as if he is still trying to make sense of it himself. Si and Ni are described in a confusing way that doesn't fit together neatly. I am not sure he was necessarily correct in his own typing of himself. I would be sceptical of his talents as a socionist

    Same to you. I find it has grown rare on this forum, which is probably why there's been a population shift to my group.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  12. #92
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Oliver Aaron View Post
    I completely respect your scepticism. I just think scepticism leads one to be aware of the possibility they are not correct, rather than the certainty that they are wrong.
    My own philosophy of what it means to be skeptical is to inquire into what is really true and how we can know it is true. Sometimes what appears as certainty that someone else is wrong is just raw, skeptical inquiry in action. It can make people rather uncomfortable, as Socrates found out.

    I'm actually quite unsure of many things in life and I challenge many ideas that people believe to be true, especially if they conflict with something I either believe to be true or with something I think constitutes actual knowledge, something that can be known.

    I suppose there are better ways to make friends, haha.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  13. #93
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    My own philosophy of what it means to be skeptical is to inquire into what is really true and how we can know it is true. Sometimes what appears as certainty that someone else is wrong is just raw, skeptical inquiry in action. It can make people rather uncomfortable, as Socrates found out.

    I'm actually quite unsure of many things in life and I challenge many ideas that people believe to be true, especially if they conflict with something I either believe to be true or with something I think constitutes actual knowledge, something that can be known.

    I suppose there are better ways to make friends, haha.
    Sounds like a good philosophy to me.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •